[PDB-tech] proposed new attribute: max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency

[Job Snijders]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 05:22:34PM +0200, Denis Fondras wrote:
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I have no usage for that field but if it is used by some peers, let's
> add it.

I can't speak for other networks, but for NTT Communications the peering
next-hop latency is part of the public peering policy.

> Perhaps we could also add a "BFD" field stating if BFD is used by the
> peer ?

BFD is usually something negotiated/discussed on a per link basis, as
such I don't think it should have a place in the network record. Also
although the concept of BFD is simple, the actual implmentations and
stablility of such implementations are far from mature.

For me a key consideration in adding (or removing) fields in the
PeeringDB data model is how they relate to network automation. I don't
see myself being able to automate BFD sessions based on a simple
(boolean) field.

Kind regards,

Job